Russian literatureKropotkin, Petr Alekseevich, kniaz
History
Russian literature
Kropotkin, Petr Alekseevich, kniaz
Russian literature -- 19th century -- History and criticism
The “philosophy of war” which Tolstóy had developed in _War and Peace_
has provoked, as is well known, passionate discussion and bitter
criticism; and yet its correctness cannot but be recognised. In fact,
it is recognised by such as know war from within, or have witnessed
human mass-actions. Of course, those who know war from newspaper
reports, especially such officers as, after having recited many times
over an “improved” report of a battle as _they_ would have liked it
to be, giving themselves a leading _rôle_--such men will not agree
with Tolstóy’s ways of dealing with “heroes”; but it is sufficient to
read, for instance, what Moltke and Bismarck wrote in their private
letters about the war of 1870-71, or the plain, honest descriptions of
some historical event with which we occasionally meet, to understand
Tolstóy’s views of war and his conceptions of the extremely limited
part played by “heroes” in historical events. Tolstóy did not invent
the artillery officer Timókhin who had been forgotten by his superiors
in the centre of the Schöngraben position, and who, continuing all day
long to use his four guns with initiative and discernment, prevented
the battle from ending in disaster for the Russian rearguard: he knew
only too well of such Timókhins in Sebastopol. They compose the real
vital force of every army in the world; and the success of an army
depends infinitely more upon its number of Timókhins than upon the
genius of its high commanders. This is where Tolstóy and Moltke are of
one mind, and where they entirely disagree with the “war-correspondent”
and with the General Staff historians.
In the hands of a writer possessed of less genius than Tolstóy, such a
thesis might have failed to appear convincing; but in _War and Peace_
it appears almost with the force of self-evidence. Tolstóy’s Kutúzoff
is--as he was in reality--quite an ordinary man; but he was a great
man for the precise reason, that, forseeing the unavoidable and almost
fatal drift of events, instead of pretending that he directed them, he
simply did his best to utilise the vital forces of his army in order
to avoid still greater disasters.
It hardly need be said that _War and Peace_ is a powerful indictment
against war. The effect which the great writer has exercised in this
direction upon his generation can be actually seen in Russia. It was
already apparent during the great Turkish war of 1877-78, when it was
absolutely impossible to find in Russia a correspondent who would
have described how “_we_ have peppered the enemy with grape-shot,”
or how “we shot them down like nine-pins.” If a man could have been
found to use in his letters such survivals of savagery, no paper
would have dared to print them. The general character of the Russian
war-correspondent had grown totally different; and during the same war
there came to the front such a novelist as Gárshin and such a painter
as Vereschágin, with whom to combat war became a life work.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account